Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Sites Can Be Sued Over Design
BcNexus writes "According to the Associated Press, a California judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought against the Target Corporation may proceed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The catch here is that the suit, leveled by the National Federation of the Blind, concerns the design of Target's website. Could this set a precedent and subsequent flood of lawsuits against websites? What if another design is not tractable?" From the article: "'What this means is that any place of business that provides services, such as the opportunity to buy products on a website, is now, a place of accommodation and therefore falls under the ADA,' said Kathy Wahlbin, Mindshare's Director of User Experience and expert on accessibility. 'The good news is that being compliant is not difficult nor is it expensive. And it provides the additional benefit of making accessible web sites easier for search engines to find and prioritize.'"
Do we let these defective people live?
No one would shop at a store that refused service based on race. It would go out of business in a heartbeat.
Dumping toxic waste into the sewers is affecting others, and is vandalizing others' property. So no, a business shouldn't be able to do this.
Not making everything fully accessible doesn't affect anyone unless they choose to enter your store. It will lose you their business, and others'.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
You know...I don't really care if anyone can or can't see my web site. It's MY blog. If you don't like how it looks, or it makes your screen reader barf...read someone else's blog.
If the Target.com web site doesn't suit you, shop elsewhere. Target isn't that great anyway. Encourge others not to shop at Target and write the company to tell them why you aren't shopping there. It's a lot more effective than a law suit.
(open sarcasm and flamebait)
No, we have the people who used to be left behind as bear bait telling everyone else to march around to a specific set of rules or they'll sue. Do they pay for any of this? No...they expect the business to foot the bill and then pass the costs on to the rest of the customers. You know who that means, don't you? It means the other 99% of us. With a site the size of Target.com, that's a pretty signficiant chunck of change. Which one of you, squeezed between high taxes, high gas prices, and a few years of pay cuts, wants to pay more for anything because a relatively small group of people doesn't like the web site?
If you don't like the web site, go to the store. If you don't like the store, SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Why? So some freakin' lawyer can get his grubby mits on 1/3 or more of the settlement and some money grubbers can get their hands on the rest.
(end sarcasm and flamebait)
2 cents,
QueenB
HDGary secures my bank